Your vs You're

[Loki]

It's quite simple. You're is just a shortened version of you are. So, if you say (incorrectly) "You're car in the garage", it actually means "you are car in the garage" - which is obviously silly.

So for practice, whenever you are thinking of using either your or you're, try imagining you're as you are. Then it will make sense. :thumbs up

EDIT: Same goes for its and it's. It's is just a shortened version of it is.

[Skandi]

I'll remember you're face when I become president. your a spelling Nazi.


PS that actually took a lot of effort to figure out!

:p

[Aemma]

I'll remember you're face when I become president. your a spelling Nazi.


PS that actually took a lot of effort to figure out!

:p

But Thrym, this last bit is wrong! :eek:


Oh crap...never mind...............................

Shit the joke's on me isn't it cuz your other one is wrong too. I need a life! :p

[Loki]

But Thrym, this last bit is wrong! :eek:

The first bit too, she was joking. :p

[Aemma]

The first bit too, she was joking. :p

I know...I corrected myself afterwards......... like I said, I need a life. :p

[Tolleson]

like I said, I need a life. :p

You can clean your room!:D

[Aemma]

You can clean your room!:D

It's OURS!!! So............. NO! :p

[Red Skull]

I approve of this thread.

[Lars]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1433&d=1239730562

[Tolleson]

It's OURS!!! So............. NO! :p

Damn....I tried.....No soup for you!

[Manifest Destiny]

It's quite simple. You're is just a shortened version of you are. So, if you say (incorrectly) "You're car in the garage", it actually means "you are car in the garage" - which is obviously silly.

So for practice, whenever you are thinking of using either your or you're, try imagining you're as you are. Then it will make sense. :thumbs up

EDIT: Same goes for its and it's. It's is just a shortened version of it is.

Your overreacting. Its not a big deal. Their are more important things to worry about. :coffee:

[Inese]

So many words in English are spoken the same way and are written similar --- terible!!! :D

Oh look at the funny commerical about the same pronouciation in English...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4roXEY8hk

lol i find it so funny!! :cool: But okay i make the same mistakes often!! :coffee: Really it is hard to difference similar words who sound the same....

[Loki]

Your overreacting. Its not a big deal. Their are more important things to worry about. :coffee:

An incorrect spelling of a word can mean that the reader misinterprets the sentence. So I think it is important, if people want to be understood. :)

[Karaten]

I never thought this would be so hard to figure out for so many people.

[Hors]

it's quite simple. you're is just a shortened version of you are. So, if you say (incorrectly) "you're car in the garage", it actually means "you are car in the garage" - which is obviously silly.

So for practice, whenever you are thinking of using either your or you're, try imagining you're as you are. Then it will make sense. :thumbs up

edit: Same goes for its and it's. it's is just a shortened version of it is.

Fascinating!

[Manifest Destiny]

I never thought this would be so hard to figure out for so many people.

I never thought it would be so hard for native English speakers to figure out. People who don't speak English as their first language may be confused and justifiably so, because many languages don't use apostrophes like we do.

[Ulf]

I actually pronounce them differently.

[Beorn]

Would it amaze all these non-English people who've posted so far that we English don't particularly care whether it is 'your' or 'you're'?

We pronounce them both the same and know exactly what is being said.

Now, you bloody foreigners, stop trying to find chinks in the God armour of the English. :D

[Loki]

Would it amaze all these non-English people who've posted so far that we English don't particularly care whether it is 'your' or 'you're'?

We pronounce them both the same and know exactly what is being said.

Now, you bloody foreigners, stop trying to find chinks in the God armour of the English. :D

I've noticed, but is this carelessness intentional, or perhaps because they just don't know which is the correct way? I'm inclined to think the latter, and I think it must be blamed on local education standards.

If I were an employer, and had to read a CV of an applicant which is riddled with careless spelling mistakes, that guy/girl would never get the job. Similarly, when I debate online I have most respect for an opinion which is worded correctly. Spelling mistakes by native English speakers are just off-putting and reflect badly on those who make it. I am not talking about typos or accidental errors.

[Karaten]

I've noticed, but is this carelessness intentional, or perhaps because they just don't know which is the correct way? I'm inclined to think the latter, and I think it must be blamed on local education standards.

If I were an employer, and had to read a CV of an applicant which is riddled with careless spelling mistakes, that guy/girl would never get the job. Similarly, when I debate online I have most respect for an opinion which is worded correctly. Spelling mistakes by native English speakers are just off-putting and reflect badly on those who make it. I am not talking about typos or accidental errors.

The more effort you put into making something presentable the more you care about it, and if you don't care enough to type out the word "you", why should I care about your post?

[Loki]

The more effort you put into making something presentable the more you care about it, and if you don't care enough to type out the word "you", why should I care about your post?

Because you don't want to look like an idiot maybe?

[Karaten]

The other person would write "u" instead of "you" and I'm the one who would look like an idiot?

[Vulpix]

Would it amaze all these non-English people who've posted so far that we English don't particularly care whether it is 'your' or 'you're'?


No, because it shows :D! :tongue;)

[Loki]

The other person would write "u" instead of "you" and I'm the one who would look like an idiot?

I think we've misunderstood each other here.

[Karaten]

I was not talking about your post in particular, maybe I should have used "one" instead of "you".

[Loki]

I was not talking about your post in particular, maybe I should have used "one" instead of "you".

I know you weren't referring to me. :)

[Aemma]

An incorrect spelling of a word can mean that the reader misinterprets the sentence. So I think it is important, if people want to be understood. :)


I think Dres was making a funny tongue-in-cheek kind of comment, adding the dreaded 'their' to the list of there/they're/their words. Amirite? (Dear gods this last word should be put on my pet peeve list :p)

[Karaten]

Amirite? (Dear gods this last word should be put on my pet peeve list )


Agreed.

[stormlord]

I thought most people with three digit IQ's had managed to grasp this one by somewhere around the age of six; did a large proportion of people using the internet simply not go to school?

[Beorn]

I've noticed, but is this carelessness intentional, or perhaps because they just don't know which is the correct way?

It's neither carelessness, nor a lack of simply knowing any better, but more for a want of shortening down what you put to paper. (Or the PC, in this case).

It's simply ingrained in the mind that 'your' or 'you're' is interchangeable and people will understand what was meant.


I'm inclined to think the latter, and I think it must be blamed on local education standards.I wouldn't blame it on the education standards. They have been a constant when it comes to teaching the basics of the English language and are often wrongly picked to be a scapegoat.
I would say that perhaps the over reliance on the PCs spell checker instead of the written standard is to blame.


If I were an employer, and had to read a CV of an applicant which is riddled with careless spelling mistakes, that guy/girl would never get the job. I agree. The lazy look of a CV would be off putting if riddled with poor grammar, but if someone couldn't be intelligent enough to realise this and ensure that the spellcheck had one look through the CV before printing, then surely the person isn't employee material anyway!


Similarly, when I debate online I have most respect for an opinion which is worded correctly. Spelling mistakes by native English speakers are just off-putting and reflect badly on those who make it.Persistently bad spellers deservedly so, but not for the incy wincy "mistake" of your/you're their/there/they're etc, etc...?

Most of the time I don't even recognise them!

[Loki]

It's simply ingrained in the mind that 'your' or 'you're' is interchangeable and people will understand what was meant.


This is my whole point. They are not interchangeable. This perception is incorrect, and I do think it comes from sloppy primary school teaching. I mean, if the teachers think these are interchangeable, why would the kids worry? Unfortunately, old habits die hard ... and if this is considered permissible in primary school, it could stay with a kid for the rest of his life. And that kid would embarrass himself more often that he would realise, especially in the eyes of non-native English speakers with better skills.



Persistently bad spellers deservedly so, but not for the incy wincy "mistake" of your/you're their/there/they're etc, etc...?

Most of the time I don't even recognise them!

I don't think of those as "incy wincy". They are most annoying, and I recognise them instantly. It's a sign of sloppy primary school teaching that stuck with the person into adulthood. Or a sign that the person is not well educated, careless, reckless ... the list goes on.

[Beorn]

I won't quote the whole comment, but I wasn't saying this was accepted as interchangeable in primary school at all.

From primary school into further education, the standards for English are second to none, in my opinion.

[Vulpix]

Then if it's not accepted as interchangeable in primary school, why revert to your=you're later on? If you learnt something, why revert to incorrect use? Is it really because if you type "your" instead of "you're" you "save" an apostrophe and an e? Or is it because after all you didn't really learn the difference in primary school?

[Æmeric]

There is an overall sloppiness in society today. It isn't just how we write or talk. I've noticed it pariticularly in the way many people dress. I never get over the number of women who will fix their hair & apply makeup & then leave the house in jeans & a teeshirt. I know guys who don't own a suit & many of them rarely ever wear a shirt with a collar. There is way to much casualness in modern society. Also the casual use of swear words. I was ten before I heard the f-word. Nowadays if your not careful, it can be the first word out of your child's mouth.

[Treffie]

I never thought it would be so hard for native English speakers to figure out. People who don't speak English as their first language may be confused and justifiably so, because many languages don't use apostrophes like we do.

I know a lot of non-native English speakers whose grammar is a lot better than native speakers.;)

Personally, I think good grammar creates a good impression.

[Skandi]

I know a lot of non-native English speakers whose grammar is a lot better than native speakers.;)

Personally, I think good grammar creates a good impression.

My Finnish friends have far better grammer than I, that is because they were taught it at school, I wasn't, I still have trouble when somebody asks me had the noun or adverb is in a sentance, because it just wasn't taught in the 80's
The other reason is that language does not interest me at all so I have never taken the time as an adult to learn the "correct" way. I can't say that people ever misunderstand what I mean.

My bug is Americanisations creeping into the language.

[Beorn]

Then if it's not accepted as interchangeable in primary school, why revert to your=you're later on?

Because we talk different from the language we are taught.

Take for example the well mannered response to not hearing someone correctly. You would say "Pardon?".
I was taught/told off by teachers and grandparents to say 'pardon' whenever the need arose, and I understood that, but my response was still "what?"

You listen to an Englishman talk his language and you will hear what I mean.

"What are you doing?" becomes "What you doing?"

"What are you like!?" becomes "What you like!?"

"You are crazy!" becomes "Your crazy!"

Another good example would be the 'h' in the English language. You find me an Englishman who persistently pronounces his 'h' correctly and I'll show you a foreigner :D



I know guys who don't own a suit & many of them rarely ever wear a shirt with a collar.

I don't own a suit. I can't stand wearing shirts, and ties restrict me around the neck.

It's either T-shirt and jeans or work gear for me.

[Skandi]

"What are you doing?" becomes "What you doing?"

"What are you like!?" becomes "What you like!?"

"You are crazy!" becomes "Your crazy!"

Another good example would be the 'h' in the English language. You find me an Englishman who persistently pronounces his 'h' correctly and I'll show you a foreigner :D



Disagree here the top bits are (from my experience) west country slang, as is
"Let's go pub" for "lets go to the pub" Nothing particularly wrong with it but it is not in common usage country wide.

The final one is still said the same no matter which way to write it (your/you're)

And I never ever drop my h's sorry it just doesn't happen.

[Beorn]

Yeah, but you're Welsh and born in Hampshire. :D


Disagree here the top bits are (from my experience) west country slang, as is
"Let's go pub" for "lets go to the pub" Nothing particularly wrong with it but it is not in common usage country wide.

Not really. You can hear that in any local accent. I certainly can anyway.

The worst offenders are the Londoners. They drop words like they would burn the mouth.

[Skandi]

I'm not born in Hampshire although I was raised there on the "Queens English" :p
I heard a lot of "what you like" in Plymouth but never anywhere else, although I tend to do a half way house so it's not "what are you like" but what're you like" that I say if I'm being lazy with friends.

[Æmeric]

My bug is Americanisations creeping into the language.
You mean Americanizations.;)

[Lady L]

There is an overall sloppiness in society today. It isn't just how we write or talk. I've noticed it pariticularly in the way many people dress. I never get over the number of women who will fix their hair & apply makeup & then leave the house in jeans & a teeshirt. I know guys who don't own a suit & many of them rarely ever wear a shirt with a collar. There is way to much casualness in modern society. Also the casual use of swear words. I was ten before I heard the f-word. Nowadays if your not careful, it can be the first word out of your child's mouth.

Hmmmm lol Just kidding :D

( Inside joke ) Anyway, I tend to disagree a bit here. I think there is a place and time for people to dress up. If you choose not to do so at a funeral, job that requires you too, or just because your to lazy then yea that is sloppy to me. And, you mention women who fix their hair and do make up and then put on jeans and t-shirts...well, they might be mothers of small children..? ;)

I also think a lot of people choose comfort over style.

I don't think we all need to run around dressed up to do typically daily things. I think more acceptance toward being more natural and casual is a good thing and that there are times to be this and times to be that. :)

[Æmeric]

Is it that much more trouble to button a shirt then to pull one without buttons over your head :confused:. When I started school, all the boys wore shirts with collars & slacks, not jeans. Jeans & t-shirts were something we put on after school. And the girls always wore dresses. It's amazing what some people consider "dressing up" nowadays. And it's not just that people prefer t-shirts, but the shirts themselves usually look like a billboard advertisement for something. The disturbing thing is that shirts & tees have become the androgynous proletarian uniform. There is not much difference in the way many men & women dress anymore. One person may wear a plain solid t-shirt, the next might wear one with the Coca-Cola logo across the front, but otherwise it isn't much better then Maoist China with everyone wearing the same grey uniform. My grandfather was a bluecollar worker & he dressed better then most people today, regardless of income.

[Lenny]

Americanisations creeping into the language.Such as? Do you mean blackAmerican speech or general Americanisms?

[Lady L]

Is it that much more trouble to button a shirt then to pull one without buttons over your head :confused:.

Well no, what you gave here for an example sounds that of a man dressing, considering a man- well no, that is not a lot of trouble. Or to me it doesn't seem so. But, is that what is in style..? ;) And, is it everyone's style..? Of course it isn't. ( everyone's style ) not that it isn't in style because men can take what you described and turn it into something that looks good whether it is considered " in style " or not. There's lots of things to consider though when saying people should just do this because....

I think it would be rather boring if all men dressed one way and women dressed the other. And, I do find traditional things pleasing to me but this is not really one of them. I don't see anything wrong with women preferring comfort over something so superficial. And, at the same time I do agree that one's first impression or impression in general should not lean toward the sloppy side. But, there is away to appear pleasing without collars or buttons, high heels or skirts.


When I started school, all the boys wore shirts with collars & slacks, not jeans. Jeans & t-shirts were something we put on after school. And the girls always wore dresses.

Ah, slacks :D Not everyone looks well in slacks. ;) There obviously has to be some sort of dress code enforced considering how some girls would want to dress but I don't care for forcing everyone to wear uniforms. Some girls don't like dresses and some boys don't like slacks. They can still represent themselves positively without 1 being told what to do and 2 giving them some freedom to express their style yet with barriers. I tend to shy away from folks trying to tell other folks how to dress or how to live.

[Skandi]

Such as? Do you mean blackAmerican speech or general Americanisms?

as in color, plow, 'ization etc etc

[Lenny]

as in color, plow, 'ization etc etcDonut vs Doughnought?:eek:

[Skandi]

Doughnought? what is that we say doughnut.

[Beorn]

Speaking of which, there is a huge park not to far away from where I live and it's council owned.
It has a big sign at the entrance. On that sign it states the opening times and whatnot and how big the place is, blah, blah, blah.

Guess how they spelt 'metre'?

Yep! You guessed it. They spelt it 'meter'.

This is the council for heavens sake!

[Skandi]

well they can measure it okay then!

[Lenny]

Doughnought? what is that we say doughnut.Oops:o

I was told even by non-British people in Europe that they do look upon American-English as sort of bastardized. Europeans are all taught British-English in school so it comes with the package I guess.

The Spaniards think the exact same about Western-Hemisphere Spanish. I am basically fluent in Spanish and when I have spoken with Spaniards in their language, they sort of laugh at how much of a "campesino" I supposedly sound like, in terms of the words I use and way I say them:p ...I find even common-European-Spanish to be quite a lazy language; yet somehow it's much lazier still in Latin America. Lower-class Latin Americans basically slur their speech so much that they're constantly saying "Ah?" even to one another:D:D

[Æmeric]

Speaking of which, there is a huge park not to far away from where I live and it's council owned.
It has a big sign at the entrance. On that sign it states the opening times and whatnot and how big the place is, blah, blah, blah.

Guess how they spelt 'metre'?

Yep! You guessed it. They spelt it 'meter'.

This is the council for heavens sake!
Meter is the correct spelling. Unless you're French.

[Absinthe]

I'm not born in Hampshire although I was raised there on the "Queens English" :p
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-british-cat.jpg

:p

[Beorn]

Meter is the correct spelling. Unless you're French.

In America perhaps, but in England it is 'metre'.

[SuuT]

I didn't read the whole thread, so excuse me if I repeat anything.

As a notorious, nefarious (and soon to be cause for execution:D) purveyor of the "your/you're" grammatical erratum (e.g. the "their/they're), I can only speak for how and why I think I do it.

When I'm trying to be serious, I tend to pay more attention to what I'm writing; however, and with that said, none here are submitting dissertations, manuscripts, articles for review, scientific findings from seven year long research projects, etc. as we chat on the computer. However - yes; such mistakes are inexpiable in all of the instances I've mentioned, and then some.

Contractions - probably due to the quality and quantity of languages I grew-up hearing, learning, and speaking during key linguistic developmental phases - affect, to this day, my use (whether correct or not) of English. As an example, if someone can show anywhere near the amount of contractions utilised in Danish island dialects, Jutland dialects, South Sweden dialects; East/West Norwegian dialects, Riksmål, Landsmål; Göta dialects, Svea dialects; any German dialects (etc., etc.) as they are in English - I would be most surprised;):).

Lastly, it's just a bad habit.



What tugs at my chain more, is the incorrect use of punctuation: If I recall correctly, I've yet to 'see' a Brit (I'm not picking on anyone, just notice things) on the internet who understands the Universally correct use of Colons, Semi-Colons, dashes, and even Commas. I've even seen the humble period provide a degree of difficulty.



P.s. Chickens lay, people lie. Also, I before E except after C. :D:wink









And peter piper did indeed pick that peck of pickled peppers. Just wanted to add that.

[Beorn]

Also, I before E except after C. :D:wink

And some other cases like 'W', too. :D

[Aemma]

Meter is the correct spelling. Unless you're French.


Sorry Æmeric, but in the Queen's English and Canadian English, metre is spelled m-e-t-r-e. There're many words in the English language that have been borrowed from the French you see, much to my Anglo-Saxon friends' chagrin.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....it all comes from having conquered these lands dontcha know. ;) (Aemma now runs away very quickly while giggling her butt off ......)

[Aemma]

In America perhaps, but in England it is 'metre'.

Indeed, as in Canada!

[Æmeric]

Sorry Æmeric, but in British English and Canadian English, metre is spelled m-e-t-r-e. There're many words in the English language that have been borrowed from the French you see, much to my Anglo-Saxon friends' chagrin.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....it all comes from having conquered these lands dontcha know. ;) (Aemma now runs away very quickly while giggling her butt off ......)Exactly, it is the French influence. Daniel Webster expelled as much of the French influnce (on English spelling) from American English as possible when he compiled his dictionary. So which is more truer to the original English, British or American? American. Meter is the correct English form, metre is French.

[Rainraven]

And some other cases like 'W', too. :D

The best example of this being weird :D:D

[Aemma]

Exactly, it is the French influence. Daniel Webster expelled as much of the French influnce (on English spelling) from American English as possible when he compiled his dictionary. So which is more truer to the original English, British or American? American. Meter is the correct English form, metre is French.

I suppose it depends on how one wants to look at things. From my perspective, I also acknowledge that with language comes historico-cultural influences perhaps better known as Traditions as well. That modern English is so very different from Old English is quite evident; modern English has indeed borrowed words from quite a few tongues. But I think one also has to consider that the English language has its origins from none other than England herself. Consequently to say that the 'correct English form is...' by using an American standard kind of misses the mark imho. If the English have always written it as 'metre' and this has been its tradition, then it should logically follow that the correct English form is indeed m-e-t-r-e.

As with everything else, languages do evolve over time. And American English proudly reflects the whole mythos of manifest destiny as well--all of which is commendable of course. But I think it would be important to admit that American English (the spelling of words as per Mr. Webster) has deep roots in your country's own fight for independence from England. And I think I wouldn't be incorrect in stating that most other lands that have been colonised by the English still write English according to England's standards, ie 're' endings instead of 'er' or 's' instead of 'z' (the latter letter which we also pronouce differently!). It's not that one is more correct than the other but more so a reflection of the culture, history and tradition with which languages are always imbued.

Anyway, I'm just offering a different perspective. In the end, we're both correct as per our own cultures.

Cheers Æmeric!...Aemma

[Skandi]

meter means something different however, and having the same word both spelt the same way and written the same way is rather awkward, however you spell it the word is still from the French, so I hardly think that swapping two of the letters makes it "correct"

[Treffie]

Exactly, it is the French influence. Daniel Webster expelled as much of the French influnce (on English spelling) from American English as possible when he compiled his dictionary. So which is more truer to the original English, British or American? American. Meter is the correct English form, metre is French.

Wouldn't it be true that both versions are from the original French? This means that they're both correct.

[Æmeric]

But in the English language the sound er should be spelt er not re. Spelling it re violates the standard rules of pronunciation. This was one of the primary reasons Webster expelled as much influence as possible from his dictionary, to have words spelled as the sounded. If Metre was pronounced as written it would come out as metry.

I think one reason for the bias in favor of French spelling in the Queen's English is class. The upperclasses - who use to be the only people who could read or write - were Francophiliacs (culturally). It was standard for the aristocracy to imitate French fashions & to speak French. And this trickled into the official Queen's English.

[chap]

In matters linguistic - as in matters sartorial - Americans are too often to be found worshipping at the shrine of the Solecism.

[Treffie]

But in the English language the sound er should be spelt er not re. Spelling it re violates the standard rules of pronunciation. This was one of the primary reasons Webster expelled as much influence as possible from his dictionary, to have words spelled as the sounded. If Metre was pronounced as written it would come out as metry.


That's exactly the point, I fail to see standard rules in British English - it's a very hap-hazard language. American English, to me seems a much more logical form.

[Skandi]

Would the word Metre have ever existed in English? didn't we just steal the whole word? therefore the French spelling would be correct.

the Americanisation of Plough also annoys me thought, If you pronounce plow you get something akin to blow, uh?

[Karaten]

Would the word Metre have ever existed in English? didn't we just steal the whole word? therefore the French spelling would be correct.

the Americanisation of Plough also annoys me thought, If you pronounce plow you get something akin to blow, uh?


Right, to consider one English true to English standards would be false. I'm not entirely sure why they blatantly do that, but hey.

[Æmeric]

Not all the foreign influences were expelled by Webster. There are still several exceptions to the rules. But the purpose of Webster was to make learning spelling & reading more simpler by spelling words as they sounded whenever possible. And yes, much of English is borrowed from other languages, especially latin via French. But that is no reason not to Anglicize the words.

As for plough vs. plow; The French don't use the 'W'. In many instances where English would use a W the French have a U is in there somewhere. And the gh is silent. So plough, drop the silent gh & exchange the u for a w = plow.

There are still many instances of silent letters in the English language. For example the W in wright (from wheelwright, normally a surname), wrong, wren or the K in know. GH is silent or pronunce like an F as in rough, except in Pittsburgh where it sounds like a G (German influence?). Maybe these pecularities have their roots in Old English. :shrug:

[Skandi]

As for plough vs. plow; The French don't use the 'W'. In many instances where English would use a W the French have a U is in there somewhere. And the gh is silent. So plough, drop the silent gh & exchange the u for a w = plow.


However plough is not from a French root, it's Old Norse or High German in origin

The old English probably has a lot to do with many of the odd words, things like wright may simply be to distinguish them from rite, write and right all said the same way of course.

[Aemma]

But in the English language the sound er should be spelt er not re. Spelling it re violates the standard rules of pronunciation. This was one of the primary reasons Webster expelled as much influence as possible from his dictionary, to have words spelled as the sounded. If Metre was pronounced as written it would come out as metry.

I think one reason for the bias in favor of French spelling in the Queen's English is class. The upperclasses - who use to be the only people who could read or write - were Francophiliacs (culturally). It was standard for the aristocracy to imitate French fashions & to speak French. And this trickled into the official Queen's English.

Yes but saying such brings us down a very slippery slope. The same could hold true for the way we pronounce the letter "Z" in Canada as opposed to in America: we pronounce it "zed" while you pronounce it "zee". The same would hold true for half the words spoken by our English friends: "Berkshire" is not pronounced burk-sh-eye-ur but bark-shur. Same for the river "Thames"; when has that ever been pronounced with the 'th' sound and a long 'a' sound? Never to the best of my knowledge.

In effect there is a whole slew of words that do not get pronounced phonetically in the English language and that is just what it is. And I doubt very much that the English language is meant to be a phonetically-based language either. For instance, the word "island" is not iz-land; it is eye-lund pretty much. The words "sure" and "sugar" are also special ones--the 's' being a 'sh' sound.

The rules of pronunciation can only go so far when dealing with the English language. Another fine example: look at the words "through", "though", "tough" and "trough". They all end in "ough" but not a one of them has the same sound as an ending.

In the end it all belongs to the charms of the English language. As easy as it is to pick up, there are quite a few twists and turns to it that does make it a challenging language in its own right.

Cheers Æmeric!...Aemma

[Aemma]

As for plough vs. plow; The French don't use the 'W'. In many instances where English would use a W the French have a U is in there somewhere. And the gh is silent. So plough, drop the silent gh & exchange the u for a w = plow.

Well more accurately, "W" is used as a letter as in the word "wagon" (same meaning as in English) except the "w" is always pronounced as a "v". There is no 'wuh' sound in French. :)

[Treffie]

Well more accurately, "W" is used as a letter as in the word "wagon" (same meaning as in English) except the "w" is always pronounced as a "v". There is no 'wuh' sound in French. :)

And also in borrowed words such as `le weekend` :thumb001:

[SuuT]

That's exactly the point, I fail to see standard rules in British English - it's a very hap-hazard language. American English, to me seems a much more logical form.

Uh Oh. Someone used the magik word...


This is where I agree yet disagree with Æmeric/Tref Et. al: In so far as it would be logical to extirpate all illogical phonetics/alliterations/alluvial spelling paterns mushed together by the clash of cultures, Webster's revisions were, by definition, more logical than The Queen's English.

With that said, however, he did not extend logic to its own conclusions - thereby, exposing 'motive' in one form or another. The most simple example I can think of off the top of my head is the elimitation of the 'e' from nearly all English words ending in '-er' (e.g. water, shower, flower, etc.). - For the most, this letter serves no vocative (or other) purpose.

I think the problem for Webster (this is, of course, conjecture - but is reasonable) is that in so doing he begins the slippery slope (touched upon by Aemma) of a reversion to prime Germanic Tounges: Cf. Vikingr, for example.


Which, frankly, would be fine with me.

[Barrie]

I know this is a European forum, I think I can mention that in South African English "you're" is pronounced differently from "your": for the first you will hear careful speakers say "yoo-ah", as opposed to "yor" (non-rhotic). More usually people always said, simply "yoo" for you're (as in : 'yoo not going home yet'.
Nowadays the tendency is to hypercorrent this and say "yoo-rr" (yoo-rr not going...).
Likewise "we're" is pronounced "wee" or "wee-rr"; and "they're" becomes "they" ("they talking nonsense") or "they-rr".